Earth911 Mattress Ranking research is sponsored by Avocado Brands

Sleep is bliss, but it isn’t always environmentally responsible. Many mattresses contain a toxic brew of chemicals — from flame-retardant chemicals like polybrominated diphenyl ethers to formaldehyde and mercury — as well as petroleum-based ingredients. In recent years, sustainable mattress companies have risen to the challenge of making a clean, earth-friendly bed.

Some of these environmentally responsible companies sell “mattresses-in-a-box,” which are delivered in a small box and expand when opened. Earth911 collected supply chain, certification, and manufacturing details for 10 sustainable mattress manufacturers to help shoppers find the best earth-friendly sleep. We’ve filtered out all companies that do not make an explicit promise that their products are green and healthy.

The results — displayed below in a printable chart — reveal a wide range of options for earth-friendly beds.

This article contains affiliate links to products that, if you make a purchase, support Earth911’s editorial mission.

Comparison Chart

To view our printable comparison chart, click the image below.

Our Rating Criteria

The factors we considered when assessing a mattress’ environmental friendliness and sustainability include the following keystones.

Company Supply Chain

The length of the company supply chain describes the distance materials are shipped before and after the mattress is manufactured. In all cases, the sustainable mattress companies in our list assemble their products in the United States, minimizing the post-manufacturing shipping burden.

Shorter shipping distances contribute fewer CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. Several of the companies — including Avocado, Birch by Helix, and Brentwood Home — use materials sourced in the U.S.

Carbon Emissions Offsets

A second supply chain consideration is whether the mattress maker offsets their shipping and manufacturing carbon emissions with carbon credits or carbon sequestration programs, such as reforestation. All of the companies with the Leaders of the Pack designation offset their company carbon emissions.

Recyclable Mattress Materials

Recyclability of the mattress and materials is a common feature of sustainable mattresses. The latex, cotton, wool, and other materials in all the mattresses we reviewed are biodegradable. However, it is important to send a mattress to a responsible recycler to ensure that it does not end up in a landfill.

Recyclable Packaging Materials

Recyclability of mattress-in-a-box packaging is generally good. Every company we reviewed offers recyclable boxes and plastic wrapping in which the mattress ships. You may receive one, two, or more boxes in your order, but the cardboard packaging and plastic film should be fairly easy to recycle locally.

Mattress Recycling Services

Old mattress recycling services are not required in 47 states. Only California, Rhode Island, and Connecticut — and soon Oregon — have laws on the books requiring removal and recycling of an old mattress. Those states also charge a fee at purchase that ensures no-charge recycling at the mattress’ end of life. Unfortunately, none of the companies we reviewed seems to offer free recycling services.

Charity and Giving

Charity and giving programs are another important feature of a responsible company. Returned mattresses cannot be resold, so every company has a donation program to dispose of returned mattresses responsibly. Shoppers also want to know that their spending is supporting ethical business practices, which often involve extensive charitable giving. With active giving ranging from 1% for the Planet to extensive networks of charitable programs supported by most of the mattress makers in our comparison, you can find a sustainable mattress that aligns with your values.

Certifications: Safety First

Certifications are essential guidelines for mattress buyers. Consumer Reports provides a comprehensive summary of mattress materials certifications to look for when shopping. For a second opinion, read Triple Pundit’s assessment of the certifications for mattresses, many of which are forms of greenwashing.

Seek out products that have the following certifications:

• Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) covers the processing, manufacturing, packaging, labeling, trading, and distribution of all textiles made from at least 70% certified organic natural fibers.
• Global Organic Latex Standard (GOLS) outlines requirements for latex products. To achieve GOLS certification, a product must contain more than 95% certified organic raw material and comply with permissible limits for harmful substances, emission test requirements, and polymer and filler percentages.
• CertiPUR-US certification of the foam used in the mattress. The CertiPUR-US seal ensures the mattress foam you or your kids sleep on is made without chemical flame retardants, mercury and other heavy metals, formaldehyde, or phthalates. CertiPUR-US also reviews the emissions, or “off-gassing,” by new mattresses for low volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, less than 0.5 parts per million.
• OEKO-TEX Standard 100 certification addresses the safety and sustainability of textiles, such as cotton and wool, used in mattresses. The Standard 100 certification provides customers assurance that harmful chemicals and environmentally harmful substances are not produced by the manufacturing process or included in the product.
• eco-INSTITUT certification involves similar testing, measuring the emissions from the mattress, and the environmental responsibility of the sourcing of materials. In particular, eco-INSTITUT examines the sources of latex, which is harvested from rubber trees, and used in mattresses.
• GREENGUARD Gold certification, from United Laboratories, validates that a mattress does not exceed the emission standards for VOCs that contribute to indoor pollution.
• Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified latex and wood products ensure that these products come from responsibly-managed forests.
• Fair Trade certification ensures safe working conditions, environmental protection, sustainable livelihoods, and community development funds where these products are cultivated.
• Cradle-to-Cradle certification is a global standard for products that are “safe, circular and responsibly made.”
• Rainforest Alliance certification involves third-party auditors evaluating growers for social, environmental, and economic factors.
• The MADE SAFE seal means that products are nontoxic and made with safe ingredients for human health.

Earth911’s Sustainable Mattress Rankings

No single mattress is right for everyone, and manufacturers take different approaches to delivering a sustainable mattress at the right price. You need to be aware of the trade-offs they make so that you arrive at the environmental outcome you want.

Completely organic materials are prohibitively expensive for many consumers and the length of supply chains varies dramatically. These two factors, along with certifications, are the most important to our general ranking of the companies.

We broke down the top green mattress manufacturers into three categories: Leaders of the Pack, Green Innovators, and Noticeably Green. The top designation, Leaders of the Pack, is for companies with at least one material sourced in the United States, numerous third-party certifications, and emission offset programs. Green Innovators may lack emissions offset programs or are less transparent about their supply chains. Finally, manufacturers in the Noticeably Green category don’t offset emissions and provide less information on charitable giving programs.

Leaders of the Pack

Avocado

Avocado offers 10 organic mattresses in total and has a certified-vegan version of its eponymous mattress. It is a Certified B Corporation and is Climate Neutral Certified. The mattresses are GREENGUARD Gold certified and OEKO-TEX textile safety. Its products use 100% GOTS organic certified cotton and wool, as well as hydrated silica as a natural fire retardant. The latex originates from Kochi, India, where it is cultivated and processed by Avocado Organic Latex. Mattresses are assembled and shipped from California. Avocado purchases carbon offsets through Carbonfund.org and uses easily recycled LDPE plastic in its packaging. As members of 1% for the Planet, Avocado donates 1% of its revenue to vetted environmental nonprofits.

Birch by Helix

Helix goes the extra mile to ensure sustainably sourced material, safe working conditions, and nontoxic mattresses. Materials include certified organic cotton, ethical wool, and sustainably farmed latex. The firm works with a variety of partners to ensure high standards and levels of certification, while also giving back through environmental charity giving programs. Also, it participates in a carbon offset program.

Brentwood Home (Avocado Brands)

Brentwood Home, an Avocado company, makes one of the two vegan mattresses (no wool) in our review: the Crystal Cove mattress. The company uses one of the most extensive supply chains among the companies we reviewed, but it makes an annual carbon offset payment to compensate for the shipping and manufacturing of its mattresses. It donates money to Carbonfund.org for reforestation projects that sequester carbon equal to its production footprint. Brentwood Home and Avocado also have numerous extensive sustainability certifications — of the quality seals that matter — among companies reviewed here. Both companies emphasize the recyclability of their packaging and offer white-glove installation, which does not include old mattress removal and recycling.

Naturepedic

Naturepedic is an excellent source of sustainable mattresses. The company has all the necessary certifications — including GOTS and GOLS sustainably made textile and latex and GreenGuard air quality tests. Naturepedic mattresses are generally more expensive than Avocado, Birch by Helix, and Brentwood Home, making the brand a luxury choice for those looking for a long-lived high-quality mattress. Naturepedic works with Climate Neutral to measure and offset its carbon footprint. Because Naturepedic does not share its supply chain information in detail, Earth911 added them to this list in fourth place.

Green Innovators

Awara

The Awara Natural Hybrid Mattress features latex and coil construction and an impressive lifetime warranty. It has earned numerous certifications, including GreenGuard Gold, and uses Rainforest Alliance-certified latex, organic cotton, and organic New Zealand wool. It uses silica-based flame retardants and water-based adhesives. Also, the company plants a tree for every purchase to help offset emissions. However, Awara is a bit vague about its materials sourcing and doesn’t feature charitable giving programs.

Happsy

While it does rely on latex from Asia, Happsy encourages sustainable rubber plantation practices which, the company says, lowers its carbon emissions. Shipping latex to its factory is its largest carbon footprint contributor. Happsy also buys organic cotton from a Texas growers’ collective. When possible, the company sources wool from U.S. suppliers but most of its wool comes from New Zealand and Australia. A donor to 1% for the Planet, Happsy is poised to rise in these rankings by adding carbon offsets.

PlushBeds

PlushBeds is a leading online luxury mattress manufacturer and retailer, specializing in organic mattresses and bedding. All products are handcrafted in their GOLS and GOTS certified organic production facility in California, with free shipping within the contiguous USA. The company offers a thorough selection of certified organic mattresses at accessible prices, especially through key holidays, so keep an eye out for their promotions. Each of the brand’s mattresses is GREENGUARD Gold Certified, ensuring your bed has met some of the world’s most rigorous and comprehensive standards for low chemical emissions. The company also provides environmental scholarships for college students, gives back to environmental and social nonprofits, and offsets 100% of its carbon emissions via TerraPass.

Spindle

The Spindle latex mattress features organic Dunlop latex, wool, and cotton and has made a concerted effort in the last year to transition to certified organic materials. Its products also feature U.S.-grown cotton, which can reduce the carbon footprint of its supply chain when compared to cotton grown overseas. It also has some very strong charitable giving programs, including a commitment to donate one mattress for every 10 sold and to donate 10% of its profits to The Conservation Fund. It could increase its ranking by participating in a carbon offset program and earning GREENGUARD certification.

Noticeably Green

Nest

Another quality U.S. mattress manufacturer, Nest uses a nice array of organic materials. Their mattresses feature a lifetime warranty, excellent breathability, and phase-change cooling that makes it cool to the touch. With a design for waste reduction, each mattress features a zipper that allows customers to swap out or replace the comfort layer, significantly extending the life of the mattress. During the trial period, customers can even swap out the layer for a different feel. Nest recommends rotating the layer every six months to ensure more even wear on the mattress. With no recycling, a vague corporate giving initiative, and no carbon offset programs, Nest is lower on the list.

Saatva

Saatva has excellent materials sourcing processes and builds its mattresses at 19 different locations and 145 fulfillment locations in the U.S. On average, a mattress travels less than 100 miles from the factory to its new home, saving energy and supporting the local economy. This online-only mattress company sources some of its materials from North America. The company was founded to disrupt the mattress store business with less-hassle shopping online. Nevertheless, it has worked hard to build a sustainable mattress. Its latex foam, organic cotton, and wool sourcing — and use of recycled steel spring coils — make Saatva mattresses a solid green option. The company could improve its ranking by earning more third-party certifications, such as GREENGUARD and GOTS-certified organic materials and by offsetting its emissions.

Previously in Top 10

Tuft & Needle

Tuft & Needle is the darling of Silicon Valley, founded by sleep nerds who built a robust business with retail locations in several states. It makes great strides to ensure nontoxic ingredients and flame retardancy and it’s available on Amazon.com. However, it does not contain organic ingredients, offset its carbon emissions, or provide mattress recycling and offers little information on charitable giving.

Casper

Casper has created a sensation online, contributing to the popularity of mattress-in-a-box products through online and retail locations. Its engineers work to improve the comfort and sustainability of its mattresses, but the company does not publish extensive supply chain information to validate its materials sourcing and makes no investment in carbon offsets. We are, however, very impressed with Casper’s charitable efforts. The company has contributed more than 70,000 times to homeless and women’s shelter programs, as well as employee volunteers who work with Start Small Think Big as well as Women In Need. Casper can improve in the rankings with more transparency and an effort to reduce its overall carbon footprint and to source organic materials.

Spindle

Spindle does not pitch itself as making a certified organic mattress; rather, it focuses on using “natural” materials that achieve the best price. It also has one of the longest supply chains in the industry, sourcing latex and cotton from Central America, Asia, and India without any accompanying carbon offset efforts. However, its use of U.S. wool and, when possible, U.S.-grown cotton does minimize its carbon footprint when those supplies are available. It could improve in our rankings by offsetting its carbon footprint and publishing information about its charitable programs.

EcoCloud by WinkBed

Composed of Talalay latex and pocketed coils, with an organic cotton and wool cover, this mattress is known to wick moisture. The EcoCloud by WinkBed has an impressive list of certifications including OEKO-TEX, Rainforest Alliance, and GOTS-certified cotton but little information on how and where the materials are sourced.

Editor’s note: We originally published this buyer’s guide on September 28, 2018. We updated the rankings in May 2022.

A new paper published in EPJ E looks at the dynamics of microswimmers under gravity. It is authored by a team from the Institute for Theoretical Physics at the Berlin Institute of Technology: Felix Rühle, Arne W. Zantop, and Holger Stark.

“My supervisor Professor Holger Stark and our team have long been interested in the collective behaviour of microswimmers,” Rühle says. “Within this field, patterns formed by biological organisms, such as algae and bacteria, are known as bioconvection.”

As an example, Rühle points to algal patches in the ocean which can be an ecological problem.

The team focus on squirmers  —  a model for a spherical microswimmer swimming in Stokes flow  —  to identify different dynamical states for such systems.

“For this project, we were interested in a specific kind of pattern formation that happens under gravity  —  swimmers reorient each other mediated by the flow field they create in the fluid,” Rühle continues. “But, at the same time, they have a tendency to point upwards  —  anti-parallel to gravity. The motion directed by a combination of these effects is called gyrotaxis, and we show how and when clusters form under these conditions in numerical simulations.”

While bioconvection can have many possible causes, such as the diffusion of oxygen, access to sunlight or turbulent flows, Rühle explains that the team’s simulations show that two “ingredients” are sufficient for clusters to form. These are gravity and hydrodynamic interactions with the strength of the reorienting gravity torque  —  which arises due to the centre of mass being below the geometrical centre ,  controlling the size of the clusters.

“This insight furthers our understanding of biological patterns in general,” Rühle concludes.

Story Source:

Materials provided by Springer. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, an area twice size of Texas, consists of plastic waste from all over the world, carried by currents to converge in the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii. The floating waste breaks down into microplastics, which are consumed by fish and in turn by humans who eat those fish.

Only about 14.5% of U.S. plastic waste is recycled; most ends up in landfills where it takes hundreds of years to degrade. The U.S. and other developed countries have traditionally shipped their plastic waste to Asia, but many developing countries now refuse to accept more waste.

A new study by an international team of researchers explores the global patterns of plastic packaging waste. The study finds three countries — the U.S., Brazil, and China — are the top suppliers of waste.

“We wanted to follow the plastic packaging waste embedded in the global supply chain. This work allows us to conclude the problem is a responsibility shared between economic agents, from the producers and their intermediaries to the retail stores and the consumers,” says study co-author Sandy Dall’erba, professor in the Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics (ACE) and director of the Center for Climate, Regional, Environmental and Trade Economics (CREATE) at the University of Illinois.

Dall’erba and his colleagues measured plastic packaging waste transaction flows based on a global, multiregional input-output database called EXIOBASE, combined with World Bank data.

The researchers found North and South America together generate 41% of the world’s production of plastic packaging waste, mostly from the U.S. (19% of world production) and Brazil (13%). Europe is next with 24%, and Asia follows with 21%, most of which is generated in China (12%).

When looking at consumers, North and South America are again responsible for the most waste. Combined, the Americas represent 36% of the world plastic packaging consumption, followed by Asia at 26% and Europe at 23%.

“High-protein food such as meat, fish, and dairy is a trademark in the Americas and those generate a lot of plastic packaging waste,” Dall’erba explains. “For instance, every 1 kg (2.2 lbs.) of fish consumed will lead to an average of about 1.6 kg (2.5 lbs.) waste. This includes plastic bags, trays, and cellophane used to wrap and cover the fish during transportation, storage, and sales.”

International exports further exacerbate the problem, accounting for about 25% of global plastic packaging waste.

“Plastic is not easy to replace. There is no other material to protect the freshness of a food product that will be shipped around the world,” he states. “We need to further develop technologies that make plastics more biodegradable, such as products based on algae. But we also need stricter regulations to discourage plastic packaging production and use.”

International agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol typically focus on restrictions and fees on production. But that gives developed countries a strong incentive to relocate their most polluting activities to developing countries. At the world level, it’s a zero-sum game, because you just delegate the problem to another place, Dall’erba notes.

The researchers conclude producers and consumers must share responsibility and costs.

“All agents along the supply chain and final consumers need incentives to reduce plastic use. Some examples are taxes on waste management or refunds for returning plastic bottles,” explains Xiang Gao, the paper’s lead author. Gao is a researcher at the Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) in Beijing, China.

“Other steps include banning of single-use plastic straws, or imposing fees for grocery store plastic bags,” he adds. “Consuming locally grown, seasonal food would help, and so would better transparency about the true recyclability associated with the resin identification code stamped on plastic packaging.”

Gao started working on the research while he was a visiting scholar in Dall’erba’s research group at U of I. Other co-authors include Cuihong Yang, professor at the Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, CAS; Andre Avelino, researcher at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory; and Brenna Ellison, professor in agricultural economics at Purdue University.

The Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics and the Center for Climate, Regional, Environmental and Trade Economics (CREATE) are in the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois.

This research was supported by the Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, the Center for Climate, Regional, Environmental and Trade Economics (CREATE), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Chinese Scholarship Council.

The research team, led by the University of Exeter, warn against relying solely on breakthroughs in climate science and technology.

Instead, they say social science can help engage people and societies, and ensure a green transition that is both effective and promotes other goals such as wellbeing, equity and fairness.

The paper is the first to be published by the new Advancing Capacity for Climate and Environment Social Science (ACCESS) programme.

“To meet our climate goals, we need both profound societal change and continued technical improvements,” said ACCESS team leader Professor Patrick Devine-Wright, from the University of Exeter.

“This dual approach can improve people’s quality of life, reduce emissions and ensure thriving economies and ecosystems.

“If people are at the heart of climate action, then understanding and tackling climate change cannot be done by engineers or natural scientists alone.

“All disciplines need to work together — not least a range of social sciences including political science, sociology, geography and psychology — to find solutions in ways that achieve wider societal goals.”

Professor Devine-Wright, of Exeter’s Department of Geography and the Global Systems Institute, was a Lead Author on the recent report from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group III.

This was part of the IPCC’s sixth assessment cycle and — for the first time — the latest report included a dedicated chapter on demand and social aspects of mitigation, and a cross-chapter analysis on equity and sustainable development.

Professor Devine-Wright said this progress should now continue, with the aim of developing more visible, responsive and interdisciplinary social science that engages with people and is valued in its diversity by decision-makers from government, industry, civil society and law.

The paper concludes: “Given that all climate solutions will involve people in one way or another, the social sciences have a vital role to play.”

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Exeter. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

On Mount Olympus, Mercury is the Roman god with power over commerce and communication and all things speedy. Mercury is the fastest and smallest planet in the solar system and the closest to the sun. And here on Earth, mercury is a substance that can kill you. So it’s troubling to discover just how many items in your own home contain mercury.

Mercury

Mercury is an element that occurs naturally as a silver-colored liquid (hence the obsolete name quicksilver). It can evaporate, becoming an invisible, odorless, toxic vapor. Exposure to elemental mercury is usually the result of breaking products and devices that contain it. When mercury combines with inorganic chemicals, it forms salts that are used in photography and as a wood preservative and fungicide. Combined with organic chemicals, it forms the highly toxic methylmercury, which is the form found in seafood. Mercury is an environmental pollutant released by coal power plants, among other industrial sources.

A neurotoxin that can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through the skin, mercury has severe health effects. Unborn infants are the most vulnerable to methylmercury, with impacts to cognitive thinking, memory, attention, language, fine motor skills, and visual-spatial skills. Adults exposed to high levels of methylmercury can experience vision loss, muscle weakness, and motor impairment. Exposure to elemental mercury can cause tremors, mood swings, headaches, neuromuscular problems, and diminished mental function. Acute exposure can be fatal.

Mercury Safety

To help reduce mercury pollution, find out if your electricity comes from coal power and if it does, try to find a safer source — either through a green power program from your utility or other energy provider or by installing solar panels (although these contain many other toxic materials). To reduce your personal exposure, learn how to eat seafood safely; how to safely handle and properly recycle any products you already own that contain mercury; and look for mercury-free alternatives to the following products.

Batteries and Bulbs

Since 1996, mercury has been prohibited in the United States in all batteries except button cell batteries and mercuric oxide batteries. Button cell batteries are used in small electronic devices like watches and do not pose a risk during use. However, they are a choking risk for small children and if swallowed, can cause serious internal damage and even death. Button batteries must be recycled because mercury can be released when they are incinerated or landfilled, which is illegal in some areas. If local recycling is not available you can use a mail-in recycling program. Once you’ve recycled your old batteries, consider switching to rechargeables. Mercuric oxide batteries are produced for military and medical equipment that most households will not encounter.

Although compact fluorescent lightbulbs are much more energy-efficient and longer-lasting than old-fashioned incandescent bulbs, they are among the types of lightbulbs that contain small amounts of mercury. That means they need to be handled carefully to avoid breakage; if a CFL bulb does break, it must be cleaned up carefully. Bulbs that contain mercury cannot be placed in the trash. They must be recycled. Consider replacing CFL bulbs with LEDs.

Thermometers and Thermostats

Safely cleaning up a broken mercury thermometer is not easy, and there’s little reason to take the risk. Not all thermometers contain mercury. If there is no liquid in the thermometer (for example, digital thermometers and most meat thermometers) or if the liquid in a thermometer bulb is any color other than silver, the thermometer does not contain mercury. Even if the liquid is silver, it might not be mercury. If you have a mercury thermometer, it’s best to recycle it and replace it with a safer option.

New digital and electromechanical thermostats do not contain mercury, and many states ban the sale of thermostats that do. But many older thermostats contain about 3 grams of mercury in their switches. Remove the front plate of your thermostat and look for small glass bulbs inside to determine if yours contains mercury. The switches do not pose a risk while in use but should be disposed of as household hazardous waste.

Electronics

Mercury is used in LCD screens and monitors. It is also used in laptop screen shutoffs. Televisions manufactured before 1991 may also contain mercury switches. These electronic products also contain many other toxic materials and should not be disposed of as garbage. Although recycling electronics is not always easy, it’s important to do so. TCO Certified technology products do not contain mercury but may not be available for all of these electronics.

Old Stuff

Like many toxic materials, mercury use was much more widespread in the past. Beware of antique barometers, clock pendulums, mirrors, vases, and organs. Older electric appliances from chest freezers to space heaters may contain mercury switches and pilot light sensors. Vehicles manufactured before 2003 may also contain mercury switches or relays and wheel balancers. These older products may need to be treated as household hazardous waste, go to a specialized recycler, be dismantled by a specialist, or be returned to the manufacturer. Safely disposing of mercury-containing products can require a lot of time and effort, but mercury is a material with toxicity severe enough to warrant extreme caution.

The researchers studied ten agricultural landscapes near Göttingen, each containing three winter wheat fields: one organic field, one conventional field with flower strips, and one conventional field without flower strips. For two years, the abundance of wild bees was recorded at the edges of each of these thirty fields. The results showed that a simple comparison of the data sampled at specific sites could lead to the conclusion that conventional fields with strips of flowers might attract many more bees than organic fields but this is not the full story.

“When we looked more closely, this did not give us a complete picture because it did not take into account that flower strips only cover about five percent of conventional fields which has significantly fewer bees overall than the organic farmland,” explains Professor Teja Tscharntke, Department of Agroecology at Göttingen University. Dr Péter Batáry, group leader at the Centre for Organic Research in Vácrátót, Hungary goes onto say: “In short, organic farming, which typically has more wild plants than conventional fields, is actually more successful than conventional fields with flower strips in promoting bees.”

The missing piece of the jigsaw is the fact that fields of grain in organic farming yield only half the harvest of conventional farming. When the loss in wheat yield is taken into account, a ten-hectare area of organic farmland should be compared to five hectares of conventional farmland plus five hectares of flower strips, which would lead to 3.5 times more bees but the same yield. In this scenario, organic farming would not be the best way to support wild bees.

“These data and considerations show that different benchmarks and criteria should be taken into account when evaluating agri-environmental measures. It is only when we take into account the area along with the yield together with the type of farming that we can achieve a balanced understanding of the ecological and economic effectiveness of environmental measures,” the authors say.

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Göttingen. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Researchers at the University of Portsmouth have discovered that rates of shipping in the North East Atlantic area rose by 34 per cent in a five-year period. Even more noticeable, and of major concern to scientists, is the rate of shipping growth in Marine Protected Areas. Analysis of vessel movements in these delicate environments shows an increase of 73 per cent in the same time period.

The report, which was published in Marine Pollution Bulletin, is the first detailed survey of shipping activity in the North East Atlantic. Researchers used data from over 530 million vessel positions recorded by Automatic identification Systems (AIS). They looked at the change in shipping between 2013 and 2017 across ten distinct vessel types. In total the study area covered 1.1 million km², including waters off Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, and the UK

Lead author, James Robbins from the Institute of Marine Sciences at the University of Portsmouth, said: “This change is likely to put more pressure on the marine environment, and consequently may have implications for the conservation of exposed and at-risk species. Renewed monitoring effort is needed to ensure that protective measures are adequate to conserve species under threat in a changing environment, where the footprint of human activities is expanding.”

This increase in traffic in marine protected areas, may have implications for the very species that these areas are designated to protect. Shipping can have a wide variety of impacts on the marine environment, with some of the strongest concerns related to the spread of non-indigenous species, noise, chemical, and air pollution, collisions with wildlife, and marine litter.

Shipping has been found to be a likely method of unintended movement for more than half of non-indigenous species in European waters (Katsanevakis et al., 2013). Once introduced, the species can become established and invasive, often having a negative impact on the ecosystems they invade. Invasive species are recognised by the Convention on Biological Diversity as one of the biggest threats to global biodiversity.

Dr Sarah Marley, Visiting Researcher at the University of Portsmouth and Lecturer at Scotland’s Rural College, said “Shipping is the most widespread human activity in our oceans, carrying a multitude of threats — from subtle impacts like underwater noise pollution to dramatic outcomes when ships hit whales. We need to understand when and where shipping occurs in order to best mitigate these risks.”

Some of the greatest shipping increases were found in areas close to the Spanish coast. The Espacio Marino de la Costa da Morte saw a rise of 413 per cent in vessel activity. It is an area designated to protect seabirds. Several areas surrounding the Hebrides off the west coast of Scotland also saw increases in shipping. There was a growth of 463 per cent around the Inner Hebrides and the Minches, a zone designated to protect harbour porpoises. The Vadehavet med Ribe Å, Tved Å og Varde Å vest for Vard off the coast of Denmark, where fish, seals and harbour porpoises are protected saw a 443 per cent increase in ship movements.

Researchers at the University of Portsmouth are calling on policy makers to closely monitor shipping increases. They believe that as human population growth drives further development and international trade, it is likely that shipping will continue to intensify. Current predictions are for a global increase of between 240 per cent and 1209 per cent by 2050.

Professor Alex Ford, from the University’s Institute of Marine Sciences, said: “Given the well-documented impacts that shipping can have on the marine environment, it is crucial that this situation continues to be monitored — particularly in areas designated to protect vulnerable species and ecosystems which may already be under pressure.”